Two studies tested how romantic ideal standards and their flexibility are associated with relationship quality. In Study 1, individuals rated themselves and their ideal romantic partners on three dimensions: warmth/trustworthiness, vitality/attractiveness, and status/resources. They then reported how flexible their ideals were on each dimension and how closely their current partner matched their ideal standards. Individuals who rated themselves higher on each dimension held higher ideal standards that were less flexible and perceived higher relationship quality the more their partners matched their ideals. This latter effect was moderated by the flexibility of ideals on two dimensions—warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources. In Study 2, members of dating couples reported their ideals, how closely their partners matched their ideals, and their flexibility. People were happier the more they matched their partners’ ideals. Partner discrepancy ratings once again mediated the link between self-perceptions and perceived relationship quality for the warmth/trustworthiness dimension.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aiken, L. S. , & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
2.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484.
3.
Baron, R. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
5.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth.
6.
Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
Brislin, R. W. , & Lewis, S. A. (1968). Dating and physical attractiveness: Replication. Psychological Reports, 22, 976.
8.
Buss, D. M. , & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 11, 204-232.
9.
Byrne, D. , Ervin, C. E., & Lamberth, J. (1970). Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 157-165.
10.
Fletcher, G. J. O. , & Simpson, J. A. (in press). Ideal standards in close relationships. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Fletcher, G. J. O. , Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (1999). The role of ideals in early relationship development. Unpublished manuscript, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
12.
Fletcher, G. J. O. , Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54-71.
13.
Hendrick, C. , Hendrick, S. S., & Adler, N. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 980-988.
14.
Hester, C. (1996). The relationship of personality, gender, and age to adjective check list profiles of the ideal romantic partner. Journal of Psychological Type, 36, 28-35.
15.
Hu, L. , & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and application (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.
16.
Kashy, D. A. , & Kenny, D. A. (in press). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Kenrick, D. T. , Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement on level of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
18.
Lee, S. Y. , & Bentler, P. M. (1980). Some asymptotic properties of constrained generalized least squares estimation in covariance structural models. South African Statistical Joural, 14, 121-136.
19.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 3-23.
20.
Murray, S. L. , & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 586-604.
21.
Murray, S. L. , Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.
22.
Regan, P. C. (1998a). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10, 53-72.
23.
Regan, P. C. (1998b). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294-1303.
24.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273.
25.
Sherif, M. , & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
Simpson, J. A. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683-692.
27.
Simpson, J. A. , Fletcher, G. J. O., & Campbell, L. (in press). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In G. J. O Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
28.
Sternberg, R. J. , & Barnes, M. L. (1985). Real and ideal others in romantic relationships: Is four a crowd?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1586-1608.
29.
Tesser, A. , & Brodie, M. (1971). A note on the evaluation of a “computer date.”Psychonomic Science, 23, 300.
